Saving Seafood

Council director laments marine monuments’ effects on fishing in western Pacific

May 6, 2019 — The executive director of the US Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council believes that marine monuments in US federal waters are needlessly restricting harvesters from fishing.

In recent testimony before the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife, Kitty Simmonds asserted that fishing prohibitions in marine monuments amount to a “major impediment” for US fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).

“These prohibitions have forced our fishermen out of more than half of the US [exclusive economic zone] EEZ in the WCPO and onto the high seas, where they are forced to compete with foreign fleets on the fishing grounds,” she said. “Because of limited data, the full impact of the expansion of the marine monuments in 2016 is yet to be fully understood. We do know that US fishermen have been displaced from US waters, where they have to travel farther to fishing grounds and compete with foreign fleets.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Western Pacific Council Director: Marine Monuments ‘Major Impediment’ to U.S. Fisheries

WASHINGTON — May 1, 2019 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

In testimony before a House subcommittee today, Kitty Simonds, the Executive Director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) labeled the increasing number and size of marine monuments a “major impediment” to U.S. fisheries. According to Ms. Simonds, these designations force fishermen to travel farther, longer, and at greater costs, with little conservation benefit.

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities also submitted a letter to the Subcommittee, which was entered into the committee hearing record, asking that fishing inside of the marine monuments be managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and that future monument designations include input from commercial fishermen. The letter notes that previous monument designations were made “with no formal public hearings, cost-benefit analyses, or input from affected constituents, and despite no compelling reason or threat to marine resources.”

“The Council process allows for stakeholders, scientists, and concerned citizens to review and debate policy decisions in a transparent manner,” the letter states. “In contrast, the Antiquities Act authorizes the president to take away public areas and public resources with no public input. Using executive authority, the President can close any federal lands and waters in an opaque, top-down process that too often excludes the very people who would be most affected.”

The letter was signed by 20 fishing organizations and 8 fishing vessels, representing fishermen from 11 states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

Ms. Simonds cited other negative consequences of the policy, including making it harder to prevent illegal fishing by foreign vessels in the U.S. EEZ; limiting, along with other closures, fishermen to operate in as little as 17 percent of the U.S. EEZ; and a decrease in the number of longline vessels and the amount of their catch.

“These prohibitions have forced our fishermen out of more than half of the U.S. [Exclusive Economic Zone] EEZ in the [Western and Central Pacific Ocean] and onto the high seas, where they are forced to compete with foreign fleets on the fishing grounds,” said Ms. Simonds in her testimony, delivered before the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife. “Currently 70 percent of the Hawaii longline effort is on the high seas. We also know, based on expert scientific knowledge, that forcing U.S. vessels out of U.S. waters has no conservation benefit to tuna and highly migratory stocks or to protected species.”

 

Rep. Aumua Amata Urges Congress to Reform Marine Monuments

March 15, 2019 — The following was released by the office of Rep. Aumua Amata (R, American Samoa):

Congresswoman Aumua Amata gave a statement in the Committee on Natural Resources to make the case in Washington, D.C. that much-needed reforms are needed for the marine monuments on behalf of American Samoa. This full Committee Oversight Hearing was titled, Forgotten Voices: The Inadequate Review and Improper Alteration of Our National Monuments.

The text of her speech is as follows:

Talofa lava. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop for holding this hearing today. The topic of today’s hearing is a bipartisan issue I have been strongly advocating for since I was first elected to Congress.

On January 6th, 2009, President Bush established the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument and the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument with Proclamation 8337 and Proclamation 8336. On September 29th, 2014, President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument with Proclamation 9173. The American Samoan Government and its people were barely consulted before these monuments were established or expanded. As a result, our local fishermen were barred from accessing the waters that Samoans have been visiting for over a millennium.

The monuments serve a good purpose, and I fully support that effort, but not without local input, and not at the expense of access to our people who have utilized these areas for centuries, long before any relationship with the United States.

Many island economies are often heavily reliant on a single industry and in our case it’s the fishing industry.  Our tuna cannery is the dominant economic force in our community. American Samoa’s economy depends on access to our own EEZ. The establishment or expansion of the monuments and the restriction of all local fishing has had a major negative impact on American Samoa. We have lost two out of three of our canneries in the last decade alone.

Our fishermen are the most responsible and regulated in the world. As it stands currently, these fish swim through the monuments and are then caught by nations with little to no environmental regulations…that is not helping the sustainability for the future stock. Using the Antiquities Act to close U.S. waters to domestic fisheries is a clear example of federal overreach and regulatory duplication and obstructs well managed, sustainable U.S. fishing industries in favor of their foreign counterparts, especially when the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument was arbitrarily expanded to over six times its size. It is now half a million square miles or an area the size of three California’s that now is off limits to U.S. domestic fishing.

Congress has already passed laws that ensures the protection and conservation of ecosystems and the species contained therein including the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Department of Interior has asked the President to restore regulated fishing in the monuments because of the protections put in place by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, protections that the Antiquities Act does not have. Limited commercial fishing can be done without harm to fish stock sustainability or the environment because Congress has already passed and continues to update laws to ensure it.

The Rose Atoll and Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monuments are just two local examples, and the establishment and alteration of our national monuments remains a bipartisan issue affecting the whole country. We need to be looking at the Antiquities Act, because any President from either party should not be permitted to establish or alter a declared monument without input from the public. To that end I am proud to cosponsor Mr. Bishop’s Monument Reform Bill again this Congress, and I want to make it clear that I will welcome legislation from either side of the isle that addresses this oversight.

The unilateral use of an executive order when declaring sites for a national monument designation is not the right way to go about protecting our lands and waters. American Samoans and the other indigenous and local groups represented here today should not have had their way of life so easily threatened by the establishment and alterations of monuments without their input.  We must ensure that all parties involved have a say, and I look forward to working with the committee on addressing what I hope remains a bipartisan issue.

Read the release here

Marine life worse off inside ‘protected’ areas, analysis reveals

December 27, 2018 — Destructive trawling is more intense inside official marine sanctuaries, while endangered fish are more common outside them, a startling analysis of Europe’s seas has revealed.

It shows that far from conserving sealife, many legal marine protected areas (MPAs) are being damaged by industrial fishing. The work has exposed “the big lie” behind European marine conservation, experts say, with most MPAs completely open to trawling.

The researchers were able to assess the activity of fishing vessels in great detail thanks to satellite tracking equipment that is now compulsory on ships. They compared this with scientific data on the health of sea areas and looked at more than 700 MPAs, covering 16% of Europe’s territorial waters. In total, MPAs cover 29% of Europe’s waters.

This revealed that commercial trawling activity was on average almost 40% higher inside MPAs than in unprotected areas. Furthermore, endangered and critically endangered fish species such as sharks and rays were five times more abundant outside the MPAs.

“It should be the reverse,” said Prof Boris Worm, at Dalhousie University in Canada, who led the research. “When something is called a protected area, it actually needs to be protected. We know that when areas are actually protected they deliver: species recover, biodiversity increases and fisheries benefit as well, as fish become more abundant and spill outside these areas.

Read the full story at The Guardian

Divers haul in large amount of debris from marine monument

November 13, 2018 — A team of divers hauled in nearly 165,000 pounds (75,000 kilograms) of abandoned fishing nets and plastic waste during a cleanup expedition at Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, federal officials said.

The 18 divers left Sept. 19 and returned Oct. 29 from a trek to the chain of isles and atolls located 1,200 miles (1,931 kilometers) northwest of the main Hawaiian islands, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which runs the expeditions.

The divers hauled in about 82 tons (74 metric tons), which is comparable to the weight of 45 mid-sized cars or one space shuttle, NOAA said.

The team of divers from NOAA Fisheries and University of Hawaii’s Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research sorted out the debris Friday.

The group split the debris into categories such as plastic laundry baskets, fishing nets, tires, buoys and smaller personal-care items such as plastic toothbrushes and combs.

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument is uninhabited by humans. But due to its central location in the system of circulating currents called the North Pacific Gyre, the debris has been carried by currents to its shores for decades.

NOAA’s marine debris team has been going on expeditions to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands almost yearly to survey and remove litter since 1996. Cumulatively, including the last mission, teams have collected about 2 million pounds (0.91 million kilograms) of debris.

The litter does ecological damage at Papahanaumokuakea, said NOAA’s Kevin O’Brien, who served as chief scientist for the mission this year.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at The Hawaii Tribune-Herald

DON CUDDY: Seamounts and canyons: It seems fishermen can’t win

October 29, 2018 — In general, sad to say, commercial fishermen are not well-regarded and struggle for respect. They don’t have powerful lobbyists or image makers and are so independent and competitive by nature that they don’t work well together. As such they are easily defeated politically when opposed by environmental groups with plenty of capital and connections. The headlong rush to deploy wind turbines offshore from here down to Delaware is now gathering momentum. From the deck of a fishing vessel that prospect is akin to a Plains Indian catching a first glimpse of smoke on the horizon, rising from an Iron Horse. “Progress,” they told him. Before long the plains were littered with the carcasses of dead buffalo, shot for fun from train windows and an ancient way of life vanished. In our time, fishermen seem just as likely to be swept from their traditional hunting grounds by this new behemoth.

Here in New England, the fishing industry lost more ground, literally, in another recent battle when a federal judge on Oct. 5 threw out an appeal, led by the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, to overturn the Obama administration’s September 2016 designation of a 5,000 square-mile area offshore as a national monument under the Antiquities Act. Most people probably support the idea of creating sanctuaries but fishermen and their families need some protection as well. The arguments put forth in favor of establishing this sanctuary spoke of it as a pristine area. Well, fishermen have been going out to the canyons for a long time and it remains pristine so apparently their customary fishing practices have had no destructive effect on the environment.

There was also much talk of the need to preserve deep-sea corals from fishing gear. Most mobile-gear fishermen are not going to drag a $60,000 net over coral because of their interest in protecting their investment from the potential damage that corals could inflict on their gear. And fishermen who target migratory species in the water column, such as swordfish, tuna and marlin, generally fish by day, I’m told, and drift at night, since the water is way too deep to anchor, so they are not going to harm corals.

It’s not as though fishing activity was unrestricted prior to the creation of the monument. Commercial fishing in all U.S. waters is highly regulated, by regional fishery councils as well as the Magnuson Stevens Act. But it’s almost all banned now. Lobstermen and the red crab guys can carry on fishing there for seven more years before they too become persona non grata. Recreational fishing is still permitted. The Act prohibits drilling for oil and gas, it should be noted, and that is laudable, but there is room for some compromise on fishing, I believe. The judge, a man named James Boasberg, certainly does not agree and had no hesitation in dismissing the case. Now having read the judgement I will be the first to concede that, on purely legal grounds, the arguments for overturning the designation were not persuasive, particularly to people without knowledge of, or any sympathy for, the commercial fishing industry. However, in issuing his ruling the judge adopted a tone that can, at best, be described as flippant, presumably in an attempt to demonstrate his cleverness. He went to Oxford, don’t you know, and makes a hobby of amateur dramatics.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Trump administration backs Obama in national monument clash

July 27, 2018 –A dispute over acts of Congress in 1906 and 1937 has put the Trump administration in court — and into the unusual position of supporting a proclamation by former President Barack Obama.

Contrary to President Donald Trump’s numerous efforts to shred Obama’s legacy, U.S. Justice Department lawyers are in Obama’s corner as they defend his expansion of a national monument in Oregon.

That puts the Trump administration in direct opposition with timber interests that Trump vowed to defend in a May 2016 campaign speech in Eugene, 110 miles (180 kilometers) south of Portland.

However, that opposition may be temporary in a case full of ironic twists that centers on a unique habitat where three mountain ranges converge. It is home to more than 200 bird species, the imperiled Oregon spotted frog, deer, elk and many kinds of fish, including the endangered Lost River sucker.

A federal judge is being asked to consider limits of power among all three government branches. For the Trump administration, the case is about protecting the power of the president of the United States, even if it was Obama who exercised his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 that allows a president to declare a national monument.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Sioux City Journal

JONATHAN WOOD: Land ahoy! Fishermen challenge presidential designations of ocean monuments

Jule 2, 2018 — This month, the Antiquities Act turned 112 years old. Originally conceived to protect Native American artifacts in the Southwest, the law has, like so many federal laws, been twisted over time by power-hungry government officials.

Controversy over the law’s abuse is coming to a head in New England, where fishermen are locked out of a large section of their fishery by the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. After spending years working to recover fish stocks and promote more sustainable fishing methods, they rightly see this move as a betrayal that threatens their livelihoods.

Why is a 112-year-old law so controversial today? The answer lies in the aggressive reinterpretation of the law by presidents seeking to expand their power.

Consider that in the law’s first century, Presidents Teddy Roosevelt through Bill Clinton collectively designated 70 million acres of national monuments. That’s a lot, to be sure, but it pales in comparison to the last 12 years. From 2006 to 2017, an additional 700 million acres were designated — a ten-fold increase over the prior century’s total.

What explains this explosion? It’s the interpretation of a single word: “land.” Congress limited the president’s monument power to “land owned or controlled by the Federal Government.” Most of us would have no trouble figuring out what “land” means: If you look at a map, it’s the part that isn’t blue.

Read the full opinion piece at the Washington Examiner

Study: Marine Protected Areas Won’t Matter

May 10, 2018 — New research from the University of North Carolina concludes that most marine life in marine protected areas will not be able to tolerate warming ocean temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

There are 8,236 marine protected areas around the world covering about four percent of the surface of the ocean. They have been established as a haven to protect threatened marine life, like polar bears, penguins and coral reefs, from the effects of fishing and other activities such as oil and gas extraction.

The study found that with continued “business-as-usual” emissions, the protections currently in place won’t matter, because by 2100, warming and reduced oxygen concentration will make marine protected areas uninhabitable by most species currently residing in those areas.

The study predicts that under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 emissions scenario, better known as the “business as usual scenario,” marine protected areas will warm by 2.8 degrees Celsius (or 5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Mean sea-surface temperatures within marine protected areas are projected to increase 0.034 degrees Celsius (or 0.061 degrees Fahrenheit) per year.

Read the full story at the Maritime Executive

 

Fight over national monuments intensifies

October 16, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Conservatives have opened a new front in the fight over the future of America’s national monuments.

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to reform a century-old conservation law, raising the stakes in their ongoing effort to curtail the president’s’ ability to set aside wide swaths of federal land as national monuments and protect them from future development.

The new legislation, from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), comes as the White House mulls reductions to several previously declared monuments. That’s an effort environmentalists consider an affront to the Antiquities Act, a law signed by conservation champion Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

Conservatives, industry groups and Westerners have long pushed for changes to the Antiquities Act, saying presidents of both parties have abused the law, handcuffing local communities who could look to create jobs on public land. President Trump is an ally in that effort.

Environmentalists and most Democrats consider the Antiquities Act a bedrock American conservation law and have vowed to fight any effort to water it down.

The reform effort has its impetus in what conservatives consider an abuse of federal monument designation powers.

Sixteen presidents have used the Antiquities Act to lock up federal land over the last century. But President Obama used it the most often, and protected by far the most acreage — 553.6 million acres of land and sea monuments — inspiring a fresh round of legislative proposals.

Read the full story at The Hill